Infinite Loop —

A look at Apple’s love for DRM and consumer lock-ins

Apple makes great products—you'll get no argument from us. But Apple also …

Apple is a company known for many things, but embracing copyright freedoms has not been one of them. The company loves creating new and innovative products that challenge the world's perception of what it thought it wanted, but it then turns around and aggressively protects those products from being poked or prodded too much by curious onlookers. Some believe Apple is in the right to do this, while others feel the company could set a better example when it comes to using (or abusing) copyright legislation for its own self-serving purposes.

This is a topic that recently came up during our Premier Subscriber chat with Electronic Frontier Foundation staff attorney Fred von Lohmann. von Lohmann pointed out that Google—a company that is often compared to Apple—has been at the forefront of the pro-innovation copyright agenda, fighting the good fight on behalf of tech companies and their users for many years. When it comes to Apple... not so much. The two companies could not be more different. Let's take a moment to summarize some of Apple's latest pro-DRM and pro-DMCA moves.

Apple <3s DRM

Apple has insisted for years that it would embrace an entirely DRM-free world if music, movie, and TV producers would get behind it. Those walls have largely been broken down when it comes to selling some forms of media (namely music), but Apple isn't exactly anti-DRM in any other sense. Aside from still offering DRM-laden movies and TV shows on iTunes (which can reasonably be attributed to content producers), Apple itself is happy to employ DRM to keep its own products from being used in unapproved ways.

The most obvious is the fact that the company uses DRM to guarantee that iPods and iPhones can't be used with any other software besides iTunes. Not only that, but Apple also uses technology to block out non-Apple devices from syncing with iTunes—� la the Palm Pre saga.

Given the above, Apple's stance against iPhone jailbreakers isn't too surprising. Jailbreaking allows third parties to create applications and add additional functionality to the iPhone that wouldn't otherwise be allowed, including running background applications and inevitably unlocking the device to be used on unapproved carriers.

Apple argues that this kind of activity is against the DMCA and should be illegal. Why? Because jailbreaking, to Apple, means circumvention of DRM, and why would anyone want to circumvent DRM except to do illegal activities? In its argument to Congress earlier this year, Apple said that the "class of works" (that is, unapproved software) that would come out of jailbroken iPhones infringe on Apple's copyrights—not to mention that such an activity could lead to the total and utter meltdown of the cellular network.

The EFF, on the other hand, says that neither jailbreaking nor installing legally produced programs would violate Apple's copyrights, and that's why jailbreaking should continue to be allowed under the DMCA (at least for the next three years). And, let's be honest here: there are relatively few iPhone users in the world who even want to jailbreak their phones. The threat of a hostile takeover by people using rogue iPhones is practically nonexistent, but Apple wants to exercise its control over all users, not just most of them.

Apple vs. people talking on the Internet

Again, this builds upon Apple's overall stance on DRM and users "breaking" it. Earlier this year, Apple took action on that stance by making legal threats against the company behind BluWiki, OdioWorks LLC, after members posted information discussing how to use the iPod with third-party software. Apple accused OdioWorks of disseminating information to circumvent Apple's DRM and enabling copyright infringement by hosting the pages on iTunesDB, which Apple believed was in violation of the anticircumvention provisions of the DMCA.

OdioWorks first complied, and then filed a lawsuit against Apple in order to defend the rights of its users. "Companies like Apple should not be able to censor online discussions by making baseless legal threats against services like BluWiki that host the discussion," OdioWorks owner Sam Odio said in a statement at the time.

The company asked the court for a judgment saying the discussion didn't violate the DMCA, but that challenge never got a chance to be tested in court—Apple decided to back off in July, notifying the company that it was withdrawing its takedown notifications. However, this wasn't the success that some had hoped for, as Apple didn't withdraw because of anyone's First Amendment rights. "Apple has stopped utilizing the code in question, rendering the code obsolete for the purposes at issue in this action. Publishing that code is no longer of any harm or benefit to anyone," the company said in its letter.

This means that if someone decided to post a new discussion to BluWiki discussing how to use the iPod with third-party software under Apple's new authentication methods, such threats could (and probably will) bubble up again.

It won't be over anytime soon

These are just a few (albeit major) examples of the steps Apple has taken to squelch open discussion and tinkering with its products, despite the fact that these activities barely affect the company's bottom line. Though most of Apple's customers don't know or care about these issues, they do affect us all to some degree or another—especially if Apple tries to use the DMCA in what some consider to be abusive ways. It certainly seems that Apple has embraced the concept of using DRM for the purposes of control, and this behavior is likely to continue for a long time.

Now, if you'll excuse me, it's time to go make a call on my iPhone while watching some movies on my Apple TV.

Jacqui Cheng
Jacqui is an Editor at Large at Ars Technica, where she has spent the last eight years writing about Apple culture, gadgets, social networking, privacy, and more. Emailjacqui@arstechnica.com//Twitter@eJacqui

191 Reader Comments

Jailbroken iPhones are proven to be virus prone and hackable. That is not what we want, and it certainly is not what Apple wants to support. If you want to live in a world where you need to have virus protection on your Apple device(s), go buy a Zune or something. Thanks.

It's easy to upset an Applephile. Why? Because at the end of the day, you choose your Apple based on emotional, not logical, decision making. Why else would you pay for more for less? Example: where's the quad-core in your $2k IMac? Sure it has a nice display, but wouldn't a BluRay player really show it off? lol.

"lol"? How old are you? Your comment here is deeply patronising about logic and emotion. Macs are traditionally used by creative type, who may very well have an emotional attachment to their gear (most creatives do, same with Cameras, keyboards, editing software or whatever). But Macs are not based on sub-standard hardware, that's nonsense and out of date. The $2k iMac has an i7, which as a Quad Core, for example.

The reason Blu Ray is not included on Macs (ironically) is the amount of DRM required in the OS (OS X) to satisfy the content creators. And by the way, Apple was in the Blu Ray consortium long before MS (who sat on the fence between HD DVD and BR).

quote:

Let me help fill you in on how Apple puts you in their own microcosm:

Why can't we sync an ipod with the ubiquitous Windows Media Player? Oh, right, the Apple licensing agreement. Hint: it's all about the iTunes store

Windows Media is not ubiquituos, thank goodness, and it doesn't have any syncing abilities with most hardware, it's usually drag and drop. Guess what? Almost any MP3 player (I have a Sansa Sandisk) can be loaded up with Drag and Drop from iTunes, on either Windows or OS X. Again the facts don't support your rant.

Hint, Apple is a hardware maker, of course the software is proprietary. Can you install the Xbox 360 dashboard on a PS3? No? Why not?

quote:

How folks continue to say that Apple is a consumer friendly company is beyond me.

Buy a Mac, then go to an Apple retail store and say you're clueless and need help setting it up, and see how much personal time and attention they spend with you. That's why consumers like Apple... I was at the SoHo Apple Store in NYC recently, and say an 80-odd year old woman being shown by a 22 year old kid, how to set up Gmail and Hotmail on her new MBP - you would not get that in Best Buy.

Oh, sorry, I didn't know that "lol" was not usable by adults. I will refrain from all non-approved vernacular going forward.

I've been in the PC world since I had my first computer - a Timex Sinclair 1000 plugged into a B&W 13" TV. (would now be an appropriate time to use LOL?) Macs do cater to the creative set now - but the older Apples aimed to be mainstream, but that's not really relevant to the discussion at hand.

WMP is certainly ubiquitous - in the Windows world, which is appx 90% of users. The likely reason Apple decided to market the iPod to Windows users was to capture some of this 90%. It would certainly make sense - if Apple was indeed as consumer-centric as some claim - to allow Windows users the option of using their iPods with WMP. But again, it's clear that the real reason we need to use iTunes is to promote purchases from the iTunes store. I don't disagree that this is a great business strategy, but I do disagree that it is consumer friendly!

I'm glad Apple is offering a quad core this time around (I've had my Q6600 for 2 years now). Believe it or not, I might actually consider one for my son as his next computer.

Originally posted by sprockkets:Hey, someone gets it, it's all about adding value.

Yes, Apple is evil, so evil in fact that their evil Fairplay DRM allowed you to burn your tracks to a cd where, gasp, the DRM was removed, and uh oh, works now on any device after that and can be P2P shared!

Yes, but can you do that with Apple software?

This is a genuine question. I really don't know if you Apple allows for the transfer of, say, OSx via P2P to be installed on multiple machines from around the world. I suspect not, since the OS does come with a license.

Besides, what would one do with the torrent once they finished downloading it? Provided they have adequate Apple hardware, there's no real problem installing the OS on your machine (assuming you CAN send/receive such content via P2P)--but what if you don't? What if your hardware, originally purchased at an Apple store, is ever so slightly out of date? Can't install it, right? What if you want to dual boot OSx on a "Windows" machine? Can't install it, right?

The point is, Apple is all about freeing up content for desired use by the purchaser, but only so long as that content was generated outside of Apple. That's fine and dandy, but this principle does not apply to Apple's own content.

Originally posted by [S]Replicant:Ever since the Mac (arguably Steve's swan song), they've completely reversed course. They now target people who aren't technical and offer a simplified computing experience designed for the masses.

Yes and no. Their marketing does send that message, but if look at the actual products there's plenty for geeks to appreciate. Unix with a decent interface and mainstream applications can be quite compelling, and Apple even goes out of their way to provide useful tools out of the box, like Python with wxPython and numpy. Yes, there's a Apple garden with iLife and AppleTV and the iTunes store, but it's easy to ignore that while still using Macs, or just use parts of it without locking yourself in.

Apple's turn toward a closed platform with the iPhone (and presumably the upcoming tablet) is a substantial change from their approach with Macs, and that's why I'm so frustrated.

Originally posted by thenino85:Regarding the BluWiki thing, I think you guys are reading it wrong. The reason Apple backed off wasn't because the code was obsolete. Even if it was, they still had the incentive to continue the lawsuit if they thought they could win it because a) the code wasn't obsolete at the time b) it will put such a decision into the body of common law and c) it has a chilling effect on this type of activity. The reason they backed off was probably because they realized they couldn't win the case, and rather than be handed a defeat which would hurt Apple severely in both PR and future court cases, they decided to draw back. Make up some excuse that sounded plausible (which judging from the fact that you guys are just parroting it, seems to have worked). Then, in the future, go after other instances of this same thing. Keep doing this until they find a case they're sure they can win. Then they can use that to bolster future cases. Remember, corporations have these lawyers on retainer. They aren't going to withdraw from a lawsuit because of money issues. The money's already spent. They're only going to withdraw if they think there's a good chance they'll lose.

Also, seriously people? Are you really so blinded by Apple love that you somehow think that these activities are justified when Apple does it? It doesn't matter if they're trying to "get back" at Palm, or if the big evil content companies use DRM. The fact is, Apple supports DRM heavily on their own products when it's completely unnecessary to do so, when they have no obligation by other companies (including the dreaded "Big Content") to do so. You simply can't get around that. It doesn't matter what slim rays of hope Apple provides in other fields. It especially doesn't matter that Apple tries to break down DRM on other people's products Of course they're going to try to do that, EVERYONE'S going to try to do that to be able to utilize competitor's products and services to their own advantage, except in rare cases like "Big Content". It only matters what they do to their own product. And to their own products, it's DRM all around.

This comment was edited by thenino85 on January 04, 2010 14:23

Umm... what the hell are you taking about? Apple has no copy protection on its major software offerings. You can buy a copy of snow leopard and copy it on as many machines as you want. Sure they would be llegal, but there is nothing on the disc preventing you from doing it. I think you're confusing DRM with Lincense agreement. See, a license agreement is, well, words. Words you agree to. DRM is code, which is like words, but for computers. You don't agree to them, and you never notice them until they prevent your computer from doing something.

Originally posted by sprockkets:Hey, someone gets it, it's all about adding value.

Yes, Apple is evil, so evil in fact that their evil Fairplay DRM allowed you to burn your tracks to a cd where, gasp, the DRM was removed, and uh oh, works now on any device after that and can be P2P shared!

Yes, but can you do that with Apple software?

This is a genuine question. I really don't know if you Apple allows for the transfer of, say, OSx via P2P to be installed on multiple machines from around the world. I suspect not, since the OS does come with a license.

Besides, what would one do with the torrent once they finished downloading it? Provided they have adequate Apple hardware, there's no real problem installing the OS on your machine (assuming you CAN send/receive such content via P2P)--but what if you don't? What if your hardware, originally purchased at an Apple store, is ever so slightly out of date? Can't install it, right? What if you want to dual boot OSx on a "Windows" machine? Can't install it, right?

The point is, Apple is all about freeing up content for desired use by the purchaser, but only so long as that content was generated outside of Apple. That's fine and dandy, but this principle does not apply to Apple's own content.

Apparently you can download OSX via a torrent and update your Mac for "free" since it doesn't bother checking anything except for the usual EFI that has the means to decrypt the encrypted aspects of OSX.

And, actually, movies you download via itunes are not restricted to how many ipods or iphones can sync to it either - it's unlimited.

Oh, sorry, I didn't know that "lol" was not usable by adults. I will refrain from all non-approved vernacular going forward.

I'm not trying to censore your prose, but I'd generally like to know if I am discussing with someone of a certain maturity or a teenager, because quite honestly the latter is not worth it.

quote:

I've been in the PC world since I had my first computer - a Timex Sinclair 1000 plugged into a B&W 13" TV. (would now be an appropriate time to use LOL?) Macs do cater to the creative set now - but the older Apples aimed to be mainstream, but that's not really relevant to the discussion at hand.

We're exchaning Grandpa stories now? My first computer was a ZX80, then an Atari 400... ditto on the B&W TV, with a manual tuner which always drifted.

I think the very first mac catered the the creative. The first applications on Mac were a word processor and a paint program (as opposed to a spreadsheet program or games).

quote:

WMP is certainly ubiquitous - in the Windows world, which is appx 90% of users. The likely reason Apple decided to market the iPod to Windows users was to capture some of this 90%. It would certainly make sense - if Apple was indeed as consumer-centric as some claim - to allow Windows users the option of using their iPods with WMP. But again, it's clear that the real reason we need to use iTunes is to promote purchases from the iTunes store. I don't disagree that this is a great business strategy, but I do disagree that it is consumer friendly!

For someone who's apparently been around the block a few times, you have a remarkably selective memory. Windows Media was introduced at a time when frankly it wasn't needed and didn't help the industry. WM is entirely proprietary (the original iPod played MP3s and AAC is also standard (although not quite an 'open' standard like OGG). Windows Media didn't work with ANYTHING much back in the day and while the application may be 'ubiquitous' in the literal sense of the word on Windows machines, no one uses it. I haven't launched WMP in years (yes I have a desktop PC) - occasionally web content asks for it, but rarely these days. I remember Real Player being huge, WinAmp being a big deal, even Quicktime 3 being something of a splash on Windows, but Win Media? The only time it got any traction was when people started using the DRM for video online, like Football Teams in the UK and even the BBC iPlayer... but that had DRM, and we're arguing about Apple's 'lack of openess', so I know you're not going to cling on to that, are you?

quote:

I'm glad Apple is offering a quad core this time around (I've had my Q6600 for 2 years now). Believe it or not, I might actually consider one for my son as his next computer.

The screen is supposed to be amazing, and it can take external inputs as well, which is a bonus. Best iMac in years (I hated the G5 and even the first Intel one). I have a home built AMD Pehnom X4 for gaming, so no need for any real muscle on the Mac side, but maybe some day.

This is a genuine question. I really don't know if you Apple allows for the transfer of, say, OSx via P2P to be installed on multiple machines from around the world. I suspect not, since the OS does come with a license.

Legally you can only install one license on one machine. However since there is no DRM for Leopard, Snow Leopard or Tiger you can use that disk for as many machines as you want.

quote:

Besides, what would one do with the torrent once they finished downloading it? Provided they have adequate Apple hardware, there's no real problem installing the OS on your machine (assuming you CAN send/receive such content via P2P)--but what if you don't? What if your hardware, originally purchased at an Apple store, is ever so slightly out of date? Can't install it, right? What if you want to dual boot OSx on a "Windows" machine? Can't install it, right?

Why not do a web search for "Hackintosh's" and see the thriving community that has grown around this very thing...!

The majority of replies to this article are as badly researched as the original article itself.

Yes, Apple is evil, so evil in fact that their evil Fairplay DRM allowed you to burn your tracks to a cd where, gasp, the DRM was removed, and uh oh, works now on any device after that and can be P2P shared!

At reduced quality.

quote:

What a waste of time, when you factor in any other digital market place ALL have DRM. Not based on the provider of said content, but by the industries of said content. Boneheads.

Buy a Mac, then go to an Apple retail store and say you're clueless and need help setting it up, and see how much personal time and attention they spend with you. That's why consumers like Apple... I was at the SoHo Apple Store in NYC recently, and saw an 80-odd year old woman being shown by a 22 year old kid how to set up Gmail and Hotmail on her new MBP - you would not get that in Best Buy.

Is this scalable as user numbers increase? Is it scalable to the enterprise?

quote:

the irony of this post is despite apple being a "paranoid content creator" or a "controlling dictator", that the average iPhone user has more choice in what to install on their phone than any other phone user on the planet.

So about that tethering .. or google voice?

quote:

That said, of course Apple is a private company and their goal is to improve shareholder value (not moral crusading), just like every other private company.

The idea that Google is somehow a saint because fighting against copyright suits its business model is just silly.

Yes, but the argument is that Google is more aligned with MY interests than Apple is. And that DRM and lock-in is NOT aligned with MY interests. And that Apple likes DRM and lock-in.

quote:

Admit it, you all hate Apple on idealogical grounds, and no business survives on that model.

I own several Apple products, desktop and mobile.

quote:

Yeah, m4a, which is a MPEG-4 format standardized in 1998 that anybody, including Microsoft, uses (because nobody wanted WMA which sucked at first and is controlled by one company).

MP3, which was more common and had higher support. Apple needed a differentiation feature, one which other products could not use until they adapted.

quote:

Apparently it is a crime for a company to make money. Tell me, how much has "Linux" made in terms of money by giving everything away for free?

Originally posted by chronomitch:Most iPhone users are average computer users who know little about hardware and software and will be completely satisfied with the experience provided by Apple. The act of Apple deciding what software users can and cannot run on their iPhones makes Apple look like a paranoid content creator at best and a controlling dictator at worst.

the irony of this post is despite apple being a "paranoid content creator" or a "controlling dictator", that the average iPhone user has more choice in what to install on their phone than any other phone user on the planet.

The fact that there are so many apps available for the iPhone has more to do with market share and Apple being the first company to market a decent, easy-to-use, touchscreen phone which can do pretty much anything a personal computer can (surf the web with a real browser, play music, play games, etc). Other companies had previously created internet-enabled smart phones, but they just did not bring the whole package together like the iPhone does.

We are now starting to get some decent competitors to the iPhone running Google's Android, which does allow the end user to run his/her own apps without requiring approval from His Steveness or another dictator/monarch. Hopefully, these phones will start to catch on and app developers will start developing for Android.

Originally posted by bartfat:Would YOU want someone else to come use your software for free easily and gain the same advantages as you without the costs?

Costs? You mean those that Apple retains from the software used to connect itself to Apple servers?

Hell no, I wouldn't mind at all. Any software someone wants to use to relate to MY services is more than welcome. If you think Apple doesn't make a killing off each individual sale makes you foolish to believe this option wouldn't be in Apple's best interest.

Years ago, I developed software for Windows. I often received letters asking why I didn't make it for the Mac, and I simply replied I don't support Apple nor its products. However, I then stated if they wanted my code to take it upon themselves to do, I'd do so at no cost.

Not a single person took up this venture. Explain to us why this is? One software coder told me it was due to Apple's software approval requirements, in that you can't just arbitrarily install software you wanted on a Mac.

Honestly, I have no clue if this is true, and quite frankly, couldn't care less. For me, Apple's take on being extremely proprietary remains the very reason I'll never support this company.

That being said, I also believe the article's placing blame upon Apple unfairly. I've never run into any instance in which Apple required DRM in order to use its products.

I agree with several comments posted Apple should stand up to content providers. After all, Apple's doing them a favor to distribute their content.

Though, this is where Apple faults in that profits are more important than doing what's right. I understand a business is meant to generate profits, but damn, just how much more millions must a company want before it wakes up to do the right thing?

This isn't related to just Apple, either. However, as long as consumers remain "unaware" (until something happens), profits will continue rolling in where everyone wins except the consumer who must figure out what $1.30 song, $2 TV episode, or $4 movie they want to "buy" despite the infinite supply these services provide.

So, reader, lucky were you to have Fox retained on your Time Warner cable services? Hope you didn't skip the announcement TWC is raising prices. Again.

Originally posted by veggiedude:Jailbroken iPhones are proven to be virus prone and hackable. That is not what we want, and it certainly is not what Apple wants to support. If you want to live in a world where you need to have virus protection on your Apple device(s), go buy a Zune or something. Thanks.

Somehow we've been able to use virus prone and hackable Macs for decades, and the world has failed to end. If you don't want to use unapproved apps, then don't. There's no reason everyone else should be forced to conform to your personal preferences.

First off, excellent use of Ben Affleck's hands from the end of Mallrats.

quote:

Originally posted by .milFox:Red Hat is a profitable enterprise. As is Novell. And Mozilla.

Red Hat is profitable via their sale of services and maintenance fees to corporations who use Red Hat.

quote:

Originally posted by Zoolook:The screen is supposed to be amazing, and it can take external inputs as well, which is a bonus. Best iMac in years (I hated the G5 and even the first Intel one). I have a home built AMD Pehnom X4 for gaming, so no need for any real muscle on the Mac side, but maybe some day.

We have an Apple store here in Louisville and my oldest daughter enjoys playing on the iMacs they have setup for kids, so she gets to play while I push my other daughter in the stroller. The screens are extremely nice and freakin huge. The way my desk is built won't allow greater than my current 22" LCD. I might be willing to get over my dislike of all in ones (always hated if something goes wrong w/monitor whole system is shot till it gets fixed instead of just plugging in a spare) and buy one.

For someone who's apparently been around the block a few times, you have a remarkably selective memory. Windows Media was introduced at a time when frankly it wasn't needed and didn't help the industry. WM is entirely proprietary (the original iPod played MP3s and AAC is also standard (although not quite an 'open' standard like OGG). Windows Media didn't work with ANYTHING much back in the day and while the application may be 'ubiquitous' in the literal sense of the word on Windows machines, no one uses it. I haven't launched WMP in years (yes I have a desktop PC) - occasionally web content asks for it, but rarely these days. I remember Real Player being huge, WinAmp being a big deal, even Quicktime 3 being something of a splash on Windows, but Win Media? The only time it got any traction was when people started using the DRM for video online, like Football Teams in the UK and even the BBC iPlayer... but that had DRM, and we're arguing about Apple's 'lack of openess', so I know you're not going to cling on to that, are you?

Well that is a nice bit of info, but your diatribe certainly circumvents the issue. Just answer this question - why will Apple not allow the iPod to sync with WMP? Again, it is my opinion that Apple does not want to ALLOW the user the freedom to easily purchase music from another source.

Originally posted by Zoolook:Yeah, because the clone makers were doing such a great job at killing off their golden tit and the so called independent retailers burried Macs at the back of the shop, behind the Atari STs and Amigas, let alone the Windows machines.

That's not what I recall at all. I was an Apple user in Anchorage Alaska, where there were two Apple stores. Neither was run by Apple, but by small businessmen proud to sell Apple and Apple-ish gear. Both of these stores prominently featured Apple hardware as well as non-Apple products. I had a "Dynamac EL", a sort of luggable almost-laptop (no batteries) that I got via mail order. For nearly $8,000!

Clones were, for awhile, where some really interesting developments happened. But every clone maker (except those early Mac "clones", like my Dynamac which were actually regular Macs bought from Apple, then cut apart and reassembled in the clonemakers case!) paid Apple a license fee and a royalty on every clone sold. If Apple lost money on the concept, that was its own fault.

We didn't have big-box computer stores back then; they tended to be mall or strip-mall affairs run by local businessmen rather than chain stores. I recall visiting Apple stores in Sacramento, LA, and Seattle - the experience there wasn't much different from that in Anchorage. My memories are admittedly local and anecdotal, but then so are yours.

fil: That said, of course Apple is a private company and their goal is to improve shareholder value (not moral crusading), just like every other private company.

The idea that Google is somehow a saint because fighting against copyright suits its business model is just silly.

Yes, but the argument is that Google is more aligned with MY interests than Apple is.

If you're a shareholder, then you can be assured their interests line up with yours. Otherwise, don't count on it. For example, consumer privacy runs counter to Google's interests.

quote:

And that DRM and lock-in is NOT aligned with MY interests.

Fine.

quote:

And that Apple likes DRM...

This is factually in error. Apple likes things which improve shareholder value. In most cases DRM goes against this for Apple (because it makes money selling hardware, using content as an incentive to buy the hardware), and Apple therefore works against DRM in most situations, as it did for music.

quote:

MP3, which was more common and had higher support. Apple needed a differentiation feature, one which other products could not use until they adapted.

iPods were mp3 capable from the beginning and remain so now. aac is a widely available format, essentially the next generation of mp3.

quote: Yes, Apple is evil, so evil in fact that their evil Fairplay DRM allowed you to burn your tracks to a cd where, gasp, the DRM was removed, and uh oh, works now on any device after that and can be P2P shared!

At reduced quality.

How is that when you are going from a lossy to a lossless format?

quote:

So about that tethering .. or google voice?

Tell that to Att, and google voice? Still usable on an iphone, but that is still ridiculous as far as that situation, so there I agree.

quote:

MP3, which was more common and had higher support. Apple needed a differentiation feature, one which other products could not use until they adapted.

Why use a standard created in 1992 or so when the 1998 standard was newer, more up to date, solved a lot of mp3's issues, had higher quality per a given bitrate, and the best reason of all, where all the people who contributed to it were in a patent pool so as to avoid the whole "Who the hell owns the mp3 format" issues that came with all the stupid companies who sued Microsoft for having mp3 support in Windows (which after a few appeals Microsoft won)?

quote:

Apparently it is a crime for a company to make money. Tell me, how much has "Linux" made in terms of money by giving everything away for free?

Red Hat is a profitable enterprise. As is Novell. And Mozilla.

You mean Mozilla who gets its funding by google to the tune of $50 million a year by putting it as the default home page and search engine? And the success of Red Hat and Novell isn't the desktop, but the server, where Linux will always be.

Don't get me wrong, I like Linux, but its on the complete other side of the spectrum when it comes to vendor backed support.

Originally posted by veggiedude:Jailbroken iPhones are proven to be virus prone and hackable. That is not what we want, and it certainly is not what Apple wants to support. If you want to live in a world where you need to have virus protection on your Apple device(s), go buy a Zune or something. Thanks.

You probably wouldn't have to worry about viruses on the Zune either since the only software you can run on it are the applications provided by Microsoft.

Well that is a nice bit of info, but your diatribe certainly circumvents the issue. Just answer this question - why will Apple not allow the iPod to sync with WMP? Again, it is my opinion that Apple does not want to ALLOW the user the freedom to easily purchase music from another source.

Diatribe is a bit harsh, no?

iPod doesn't do automatic syncing with any application, except iTunes and quite frankly it's not the hardware maker's responsibility to make this so. Has Microsoft made any attempt to make WMP work with the iPod? I doubt it. If you're asking why the iPod cannot play Windows Media, the answer should be obvious, because it's a proprietary format and Apple would have to pay MS for the priviledge, something they're not going to be interested in doing. Assuming your entire collection is MP3, you can use something like Xplay to Sync Windows Media to an iPod.

But your post has mixed points anyway, because iPod not working with Windows Media Player has nothing to do with purchasing music from other sources. You can buy music from Amazon or other places, and as long as it's DRM free, you can add it to iTunes/iPod easily.

This is a genuine question. I really don't know if you Apple allows for the transfer of, say, OSx via P2P to be installed on multiple machines from around the world. I suspect not, since the OS does come with a license.

Legally you can only install one license on one machine. However since there is no DRM for Leopard, Snow Leopard or Tiger you can use that disk for as many machines as you want.

Disc =/= P2P file sharing.

quote:

quote:

Besides, what would one do with the torrent once they finished downloading it? Provided they have adequate Apple hardware, there's no real problem installing the OS on your machine (assuming you CAN send/receive such content via P2P)--but what if you don't? What if your hardware, originally purchased at an Apple store, is ever so slightly out of date? Can't install it, right? What if you want to dual boot OSx on a "Windows" machine? Can't install it, right?

Why not do a web search for "Hackintosh's" and see the thriving community that has grown around this very thing...!

Are you trying to make my point for me?

How many sites are devoted to instructions, tricks, and/or hacks to aid in the installation of Windows or Linux on a user’s machine of choice? Mind you, not the aids that help users circumvent Apple’s efforts to PREVENT such installations?

What legal actions have Windows or Linux developers taken to prevent users from doing just what the hackintosh community supports?

It’s in the freakin’ name! You can only install OSx on your non-Apple provided machine if you HACK the software!

quote:

The majority of replies to this article are as badly researched as the original article itself.

Thanks, douche. Some of the replies to this article as badly reasoned as.. well, I'm not sure the reasoning behind the article is so bad..

Originally posted by jamesa:I agree that the way that they have approached the "apps on the iPhone" hasn't been ideal, but at the same time, there is no denying that their approach of tightly controlling what is allowed on the store has created tremendous value for most users and most developers. In terms of a fully-fledged platform, it's grown enormously quickly, especially compared to most other mobile devices. I think a big part of this is trust - it's tightly integrated, easy to use, and users trust that stuff they download from the store will just work. I personally think that this would not have been possible if Apple had just taken the "every man for himself" model that all the other phone manufacturers have.

See, I think the real value is the service itself. It's well put together and easy to use. I think even without the DRM the vast majority of users and developers would still operate through the app store because of it. Nothing you mentioned - integration, ease of use, vetting programs for quality - really requires DRM.

quote:

Originally posted by jamesa:In terms of syncing an iPod with something other than iTunes, I agree, and Apple didn't care until the record labels forced that down their throats. The encryption on the iPod was enabled because the labels were worried about people walking around with all this music on a music player, being able to plug it in anywhere and just suck off all the songs.

I'm somewhat skeptical if only because they didn't add encryption until the 2.0 iphone/touch firmware. People had been walking around with tons of music - substantially more in fact on the harddrive based models - for years.

quote:

Originally posted by jamesa:And finally, Palm on iTunes - back to my argument (and one which WaltC put nicely above) - if you're using a bit of free software, you're not a customer of Apple's (with perhaps the exception of the songs you buy off the iTunes Store, but they're easy to take anywhere). It's a hardware company. It cares about its customers who use its hardware. Making iTunes work with the Palm is the next best thing to letting Palm grab the iPhone OS and run it on top of a Palm Pre.

The attitude strikes me as short sighted. There are likely many reasons Apple spends the time and money it does to maintain iTunes on Windows, but I'm sure one of those reasons is to sell their brand. Heck, Safari doesn't even have any hardware to integrate with. The only real reason to release it on Windows is to convince people who aren't currently Apple customers that they might like Apple products.

The guy with a Palm Pre isn't a potential customer right now. He just bought a new phone. If he uses it with iTunes and enjoys the experience, maybe he'll consider an iPhone when he needs a new phone. Somehow I doubt the approach that Apple actually decided to take with the Pre won over any potential customers.

quote:

what Apple have demonstrated (and what Google is attempting to copy in the phone space right now) is that if you own the hardware and software, you can provide a superior user experience.

See, I don't understand this thinking in the slightest.

For example, the iPod is a wonderful product. It has a simple, innovative, intuitive interface and the tight integration with iTunes makes it dead simple to use. It is a fantastic user experience.

Then let's say I fiddle around and come up with some scripts so I can sync my iPod with rhythmbox or something. Does this software's existence make *your* iTunes+iPod experience any less fantastic? If not, how exactly is Apple's control improving your user experience?

With tight controls to limit interoperability, the device works beautifully for everyone whose needs Apple anticipated and is worthless to anyone else. Without those controls, the device works exactly the same way with Apple's software. With identical user experiences, calling one "superior" makes no sense.

Well that is a nice bit of info, but your diatribe certainly circumvents the issue. Just answer this question - why will Apple not allow the iPod to sync with WMP? Again, it is my opinion that Apple does not want to ALLOW the user the freedom to easily purchase music from another source.

Diatribe is a bit harsh, no?

iPod doesn't do automatic syncing with any application, except iTunes and quite frankly it's not the hardware maker's responsibility to make this so. Has Microsoft made any attempt to make WMP work with the iPod? I doubt it. If you're asking why the iPod cannot play Windows Media, the answer should be obvious, because it's a proprietary format and Apple would have to pay MS for the priviledge, something they're not going to be interested in doing. Assuming your entire collection is MP3, you can use something like Xplay to Sync Windows Media to an iPod.

But your post has mixed points anyway, because iPod not working with Windows Media Player has nothing to do with purchasing music from other sources. You can buy music from Amazon or other places, and as long as it's DRM free, you can add it to iTunes/iPod easily.

Sorry, didn't mean to sound harsh there.

Apple's licensing agreement prohibits MS from allowing an iPod to be recognized in WMP. I'm not sure why you are so against having WMP as an option for a consumer. I currently use iTunes, but some things annoy me - like not being able to get cover art for any of my Beatles remasters. Are there workarounds? Absolutely. But these are only necessary because Apple will not allow you to use WMP directly. Why is that? Again - and this is what you called mixed points - I think that Apple requires you to use iTunes so that your most convenient option for buying music is through their own store. Do you really disagree?

- Macs; Like the Playstation, and X-Box; Apple sells computers which are tied to certain software. But much of the tie-in limitations can be overcome on all these devices. For instance the Macs for my wife and son both run Windows as well as OSX. No limit here.

- Software compatibility; It is true that Mac software needs a Mac. But MS software only runs on Windows and some MS products run on the Mac but there is no Linux compatibility out of the box. - Same with some features of phone software such as e-mail programs. Phone e-mail and push e-mail are not immediately compatible across all phones.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Push_e-mail

- phones; since when have cell phones been a wide open enviornment? In the US at least there are still incompatible systems with different phone companies. And phone companies want to tie your phone to their websites. Apple's behavior is similar to several companies.

- More about other companies; even Google will protect its copyrights when it suits its business model. Same goes for Microsoft with the Zune.

Then let's say I fiddle around and come up with some scripts so I can sync my iPod with rhythmbox or something. Does this software's existence make *your* iTunes+iPod experience any less fantastic? If not, how exactly is Apple's control improving your user experience?

Apple's control improves the user experience because users often make bad decisions. The fewer choices they have, the fewer opportunities they have to screw things up.

In other words, the fact that *you* can't sync with rhythmbox doesn't improve his experience, it's the fact that *he* can't sync with rhythmbox that does it.

I'm not saying that this design philosophy produces products that I want to use - I take the time to be fairly well informed about technology, so I am capable of handling the power of open systems and I want that power. But closed systems aren't stupid, nor do they exist solely to lock out competitors. They exist because even though people think they want more freedom, they tend to be happier when they have less.

Apple's licensing agreement prohibits MS from allowing an iPod to be recognized in WMP. I'm not sure why you are so against having WMP as an option for a consumer.

I'm not against it in that way, and the player is OK (well 11 was, 12 was a step back IMO) but I am not a fan of Windows Media formats (WMA/WMV).

quote:

I currently use iTunes, but some things annoy me - like not being able to get cover art for any of my Beatles remasters. Are there workarounds? Absolutely. But these are only necessary because Apple will not allow you to use WMP directly.

Woah, you're mixing points again. The reason the Beatles Album Art is not available automatically (in the get album art option) is because it's not avaialble in iTunes and that's entirely down to the Beatles themselves, not Apple. Does WMP do this out of the box, find album art for ripped CDs for songs MS doesn't have in the Market Place? I'm guessing not. So album art and WMP compatibility are different issues, not linked as you're trying to do.

quote:

Why is that? Again - and this is what you called mixed points - I think that Apple requires you to use iTunes so that your most convenient option for buying music is through their own store. Do you really disagree?

No I don't disagree; Apple makes it much easier to integrate it's own hardware, software and content stores. What's best for business and profit has rarely been the same as what's best for consumers, but this is not a criticism that should be reserved for Apple, and in many ways they were last to the party in terms of these practices. It's 'amazing' that behaving a little bit more like MS has bought them such commercial success in the last decade, isn't it?

Apple also happily employed HDCP in its implementation of the Mini DisplayPort for its portable machines starting in 2008. This means that certain movies that are HDCP "aware" can now detect whether the movie is being output to an approved display—if not, the movie won't play. DisplayPort itself was designed as an open, extensible standard for computers that offers lower power consumption over DVI, so it was Apple's choice to massage HDCP into the mix for its own (and partners') interests.

Huh? If they don't support HDCP then HDCP content is not outputtable even when connected to a HDCP-display because the source can't verify the display. Not including it would be a real dumb move, especially if Apple do ever get around to putting Blu-ray in this kit and you want to use a Mac to drive a HDTV and watch Blu-ray discs.

Yes, but DRM does protect the viability of apps by making sure ppl get a return on their investment by preventing piracy. Sure, Apple may only mention how jailbroken phones can pirate, and not the other aspects of UI freedom it brings, but nevertheless it preserves the value of the whole ecosystem.

Buy a Mac, then go to an Apple retail store and say you're clueless and need help setting it up, and see how much personal time and attention they spend with you. That's why consumers like Apple... I was at the SoHo Apple Store in NYC recently, and saw an 80-odd year old woman being shown by a 22 year old kid how to set up Gmail and Hotmail on her new MBP - you would not get that in Best Buy.

Is this scalable as user numbers increase? Is it scalable to the enterprise?

Good question. The answer is yes, assuming that the price of MacBooks remain at a premium. It cannot be maintained if Apple starts selling $400 laptops. The service is part of the premium price.

Then let's say I fiddle around and come up with some scripts so I can sync my iPod with rhythmbox or something. Does this software's existence make *your* iTunes+iPod experience any less fantastic? If not, how exactly is Apple's control improving your user experience?

Apple's control improves the user experience because users often make bad decisions. The fewer choices they have, the fewer opportunities they have to screw things up.

In other words, the fact that *you* can't sync with rhythmbox doesn't improve his experience, it's the fact that *he* can't sync with rhythmbox that does it.

I'm not sure I buy that. I don't disagree with your premise - users do make poor decisions - but I'm not sure how much it matters. Most of the 3rd party solutions I've seen aren't simple to configure nor are they particularly easy to use. They're inferior to Apple's software in most ways and only exist because of a specific shortcoming (e.g., linux sync), not as a general purpose replacement. I'm not sure why someone would seek one out if iTunes met their needs, but even if they did merely installing and configuring it signifies they have some idea what they're doing.

Essentially, I don't see the harm in a loosely closed system where Apple simply ignores third-party compatibility solutions rather than deliberately breaking them. If the non-Apple solution is inferior to iTunes, for the most part people won't use it. If someone actually manages to write an alternate solution that's legitimately better than iTunes, it's pretty tough to argue the preventing people from using it improves their experience.

A big criticism of Microsoft in the 1990's was that they wanted only Microsoft software running on PC's. For a number of reasons, they have made their software extensible, and they allow non-Microsoft defaults within Windows. Likewise, Microsoft products have themselves become much better. I wonder if the quality of Apple software for Windows (iTunes + QuickTime, especially) would similarly improve if MobileSync became open or at least available for license. Not that Microsoft 2010 is a perfect role model; I wish I could use Thunderbird with my Exchange account, for example.

The biggest frustration is that iPhone & iTunes developers can improve those products in ways Apple declines to do, yet they are forbidden from bringing those solutions to users. I really wish 3rd-party developers could extend iTunes sync, or create their own non-iTunes sync for iPhones. I also wish there was a supported method for installing unofficial software on iPhones, without making it sound illicit like jailbreaking does. Indeed, Apple's stance that jailbreaking is uniformly illicit is sad and unfair.

I think it's foolish of Apple, really, because the smartphone & PMP market is now evolving much more rapidly. Zune, Android, and WebOS are behind more in marketing than in design. Unhappy App Store developers could find a new home.

Originally posted by Zoolook:Woah, you're mixing points again. The reason the Beatles Album Art is not available automatically (in the get album art option) is because it's not avaialble in iTunes and that's entirely down to the Beatles themselves, not Apple. Does WMP do this out of the box, find album art for ripped CDs for songs MS doesn't have in the Market Place? I'm guessing not. So album art and WMP compatibility are different issues, not linked as you're trying to do.

Not sure about WMP -- but the Zune software finds album art for albums that I didn't purchase from MS. If it didn't, I'd have no album art of any kind.

Apple develops technology tested under particular circumstances and guaranteed to operate within those circumstances. Boo hoo for Palm if they can't sync with iTunes. Palm's success is their own responsibility, not Apple's. And Apple is 100% right to lock Palm's crapware out of iTunes - a product which Apple stands behind.

Apples use of DRM to keep incompatibilities out of their digital ecosystem is entirely different than the media firms looking to restrict use of their own products like Soviets shooting anybody trying to climb over the Berlin Wall.

The problem with DRM isn't companies trying to preserve/protect users' experience. It's when companies try to limit/eliminate Fair Use. Buy Star Trek online, burn it to DVD, get sued. Buy it on DVD, rip it to your handheld, get sued. That's just ridiculous.

Buy a Mac, then go to an Apple retail store and say you're clueless and need help setting it up, and see how much personal time and attention they spend with you. That's why consumers like Apple... I was at the SoHo Apple Store in NYC recently, and saw an 80-odd year old woman being shown by a 22 year old kid how to set up Gmail and Hotmail on her new MBP - you would not get that in Best Buy.

Is this scalable as user numbers increase? Is it scalable to the enterprise?

Good question. The answer is yes, assuming that the price of MacBooks remain at a premium. It cannot be maintained if Apple starts selling $400 laptops. The service is part of the premium price.

Another personal experience about service at the Apple Store; A friend of ours (who used to take up hours of time with support calls including from companies, friends and co-workers such as me) explained to us (my wife and I) why she switched to the Mac. She took her Windows laptop to the Apple Store and the staff for no additional charge took all of her data and loaded it onto her new MacBook. This included addresses, favorites, etc. She has been a Mac user ever since. Any problems, she calls Apple or takes her laptop to the store and they take care of it. - I think it needs to be remembered that some computer users want their computer to have the ease of use of an appliance. Apple since the introduction of the Mac has tried to provide that kind of user experience and over the years they have been getting closer to that goal.

Originally posted by Zoolook:Woah, you're mixing points again. The reason the Beatles Album Art is not available automatically (in the get album art option) is because it's not avaialble in iTunes and that's entirely down to the Beatles themselves, not Apple. Does WMP do this out of the box, find album art for ripped CDs for songs MS doesn't have in the Market Place? I'm guessing not. So album art and WMP compatibility are different issues, not linked as you're trying to do.

Not sure about WMP -- but the Zune software finds album art for albums that I didn't purchase from MS. If it didn't, I'd have no album art of any kind.

Same with iTunes for 90% of things. The Beatles is an exception for well publicised reasons.